Disclaimer: the posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

"In his bookUnequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Larry Bartels calculates that between 1952 and 2004 the average annual real post-tax income gain for the rich was 1.37% when Democrats were in the White House and just 0.92% when Republicans were.

"Interestingly, when Mr Bartels looks at the real post-tax income growth of the poor... Their income increased by 1.56% a year under Democrats and declined by 0.32% a year under Republicans.

"In other words, the gap between the rich and the rest grew substantially wider under Republican administrations...

"Economic policy is also set by the Federal Reserve.

"If there have been two moments in the past century when Fed policy has been most awry, it was probably in the early 1930s (when policy was too tight) and the mid-1970s (when it was too loose).

"Both periods coincided, initially at least, with Republicans in the White House...

"If ... Republicans were to win the presidency ... a combination of tighter fiscal and monetary policy would provide a tough environment for equity markets in 2013 and 2014.

My gran worked with 50 others at Belmont casket. Belmont made the casket that JFKand several other Presidents are buried in, until Bain capital bankrupted them. The work force was very stable and most had stayed at Belmont for 20 plus years. With most of the employees ready to retire at same time management sold out. What was left? A monthly pay packet of 65 dollars a month pension. This was 1980. Thanks WILLARD!

Re: your title, "better for the rich and the poor?" The answer may be yes.

The only way the poor will be better off is if there is a greater demand for labor, i.e., more jobs and better paid jobs. Those jobs cannot come from a government that is running deficits of a $trillion a year. So they can only come from the private sector.

How can the private sector be induced to create more jobs? By increasing the opportunity for private sector profit. That means lower corporate taxes. In the last presidential debate, Romney noted that the corporation tax in the US is 35% in Canada 15, then asked "where would you start a business?"

While no one can be sure of what a Republican administration would do, it could (a) cut the corporation tax as promised by Romney, (b) force China and Japan to spend their hoards of dollars or face tariffs on their exports to the US. Either way, that would mean more US jobs.

All very upsetting to the left, which would rather have an unending depression than see the capitalists do well opening factories and making money in the US.

Nation Tunes In To See Which Sociopath More Likable This TimeUSA President Election is a Mafia Facade Stage Play:http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-tunes-in-to-see-which-sociopath-more-likabl,29946/

"I’m very curious to see which one of these two clinically sociopathic individuals will present the most convincing" "approximation of" "emotional states such as empathy and regret will probably have my vote come November".